Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
7,024
5,217
118
Country
United States
The difference between the covid mandates and MMR mandates is one stops viruses from circulating and the other doesn't. If something is only helping me, why should I be forced to get it?
That's not the actual argument
Are you gonna force people not the drink pop (which causes far more death and medical issues than covid could ever cause)? There's a reason why haven't had pop in over 20 years.
Because you're hilariously bad at risk assessment? Soda pop didn't kill 6.5 million people over the last two years, leaving survivors with a wide variety of neurological and physical side effects.
Even abortion has more people it's affecting than the covid vaccine.
Lmao, what does this even mean?
And the difference between having prisoners work and owning people is massive.
I didn't realize the prisoners were free to leave. It might not be chattel slavery as practiced in the US, but it's definitely slavery
Gay people could just make their own church and have marriage if the government didn't recognize marriage and the normal churches wouldn't marry them so how would they be unequal in that scenario? The could do exactly what straight people could then. You actually have to be disadvantaged in some way to not be equal.
I mean, the government would have to recognize the religion. The faith-based hospitals would have to recognize the religion. The insurance companies would have to recognize the religion. Oh, and you'd have to convince people that they had to convert to a religion, leaving their old one behind.
Where is that written in the Declaration or Constitution?
Putting aside the fact that the Declaration of Independence *is not a legal document*, it wasn't. Meaning that every state set their own rules. And guess what fucking happened. Weird how the Constitution didn't do anything to prevent rampant inequalities for centuries
It still has to be argued, I really don't understand how you don't understand this. If you were told you can't say something and didn't use the 1st amendment as your defense, then that's on you.
Yes, I'm sure the activists of the time just never thought about that.
BECAUSE OF THE ARGUMENTS...
They used the 14th amendment, numbnuts. How were the arguments so bad that 4 justices rejected them on purely legal grounds?
Most people live in very populated areas (I wanna say it's like 80% without re-looking it up) and those people aren't very racist at all. Maybe the majority of the land of the US is racist but not most of the people.
Wait, but those are the cities you claim black people are fleeing from
AGAIN, YOU DON'T GET IT, IT'S THE FUCKING ARGUMENTS!!! Roe wasn't argued well at all, they didn't use the 14th amendment for example, they didn't do what RGB said should've been argued. The manner in which Roe was argued, it wasn't the federal government's right to give. If you argue it like RGB wanted, then it might be.
It's either a right that can be given federally or not. And the Supreme Court said it's not. Which would make a federal law irrelevant
You're just ignoring the fact that there's a whole other body present in the abortion debate. If it was just women having a right to do with their body what they want, it wouldn't be a thing that is argued now here in the US and literally the rest of the world.
Yes, you seem to claim that a whole other person has the right to use somebody else's body without consent, permanently changing and in many cases damaging it.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,786
4,307
118
Country
United Kingdom
You're just responding with fear mongering bullshit that isn't true. The justices don't disagree, the one said it should be reconsidered, not that gay marriage is not protected by the constitution.
:rolleyes: Of course they didn't say it wasn't protected by the Constitution--- the filing wasn't about that. They couldn't rule on it in that filing. But they did say the same reasoning would apply.

Because the argument was just that gay marriage should be legal because it just should vs making strong arguments on why it's actually unfair. When left with such vague argument, you can use the law to say either conclusion really. I think only one of the dissenters even brought up anything along the lines of the historical argument you keep saying is why they'd be against it.

No, Obergefell was not decided "because it just should". Again your understanding of the basic facts of the topic continues to disappoint.

And now you're saying that "you can use the law to say either conclusion". Right... which has been my point all along. Why do you consider Obergefell perfectly safe if "you can use the law to say either conclusion"?


I'm not saying that doesn't help. I'm saying in a real racist town, the law will not be enforced.
OK. Not relevant to the question.

Discrimination is outlawed. Republicans want to write in religious exemptions to roll that back, and effectively legalise discrimination in those circumstances. It's a perfectly valid example of the Republican Party acting against the ability of LGBT+ people to be treated equally.


Yeah, cool argument as you don't post anything to the contrary and just say the opposite of me.
What has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you want a counter-argument, you're going to have to (at minimum) put forward an argument of your own to begin with, rather than just regurgitating 'that's how it is'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
7,024
5,217
118
Country
United States
Texas unsurprisingly joins the "child rape victims, adult rape victims, incest victims, and every other pregnant person has to give birth unless they come to the brink of death while carrying" fan club, going to thee lengths of life in prison for the abortionist.

 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,732
642
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Yes, exactly. Now put 2+2 together.

:rolleyes:
Black people are moving away because they did the math.


No actually Capitalism does that, which isn't Left.

And?

No, it's just the woman. Unfortunately women are deemed untrustworthy with this decision by the many assholes in the US and the rest of the world.
So you want socialism then?

Wow, you can't even admit there's another body in there...



That's not the actual argument
Because you're hilariously bad at risk assessment? Soda pop didn't kill 6.5 million people over the last two years, leaving survivors with a wide variety of neurological and physical side effects.
Lmao, what does this even mean? I didn't realize the prisoners were free to leave. It might not be chattel slavery as practiced in the US, but it's definitely slavery
I mean, the government would have to recognize the religion. The faith-based hospitals would have to recognize the religion. The insurance companies would have to recognize the religion. Oh, and you'd have to convince people that they had to convert to a religion, leaving their old one behind.
Putting aside the fact that the Declaration of Independence *is not a legal document*, it wasn't. Meaning that every state set their own rules. And guess what fucking happened. Weird how the Constitution didn't do anything to prevent rampant inequalities for centuries
Yes, I'm sure the activists of the time just never thought about that.
They used the 14th amendment, numbnuts. How were the arguments so bad that 4 justices rejected them on purely legal grounds?
Wait, but those are the cities you claim black people are fleeing from
It's either a right that can be given federally or not. And the Supreme Court said it's not. Which would make a federal law irrelevant
Yes, you seem to claim that a whole other person has the right to use somebody else's body without consent, permanently changing and in many cases damaging it.
Yeah, it's a very legit argument. Why are you gonna force something on someone that only affects them? But then allow someone else to choose when that choice affects more than just them?

The baby...

Like no one has a problem with it but you.

Why would these places have to accept religion? Marriage doesn't have to have anything official tied to it. Oh noes, you have to leave the religion that doesn't like your lifestyle...

You have to challenge such inequalities, it doesn't just go away just cuz.

They literally didn't, no one in history used the 9th amendment to challenge slavery.

They used the 14th differently not saying married people have these advantages thus it's unequal, they just said that it's not equal because they these people can get married and those cannot. Those are different arguments.

They are, those are the numbers...

IT'S BASED ON THE FUCKING ARGUMENTS. The SC said it's not a right based on the Roe argument, they overturned Roe not abortion. That has nothing to do with whether abortion can be a federal right or not.

And, you seem to claim that a whole other person has the right to end someone else's life. I thought we were past these tired arguments... If you don't acknowledge the other side's point of view that is just as morally justified as yours, you're not gonna get anywhere.


:rolleyes: Of course they didn't say it wasn't protected by the Constitution--- the filing wasn't about that. They couldn't rule on it in that filing. But they did say the same reasoning would apply.




No, Obergefell was not decided "because it just should". Again your understanding of the basic facts of the topic continues to disappoint.

And now you're saying that "you can use the law to say either conclusion". Right... which has been my point all along. Why do you consider Obergefell perfectly safe if "you can use the law to say either conclusion"?




OK. Not relevant to the question.

Discrimination is outlawed. Republicans want to write in religious exemptions to roll that back, and effectively legalise discrimination in those circumstances. It's a perfectly valid example of the Republican Party acting against the ability of LGBT+ people to be treated equally.




What has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you want a counter-argument, you're going to have to (at minimum) put forward an argument of your own to begin with, rather than just regurgitating 'that's how it is'.
could*

Most of the argument was that. I believe there was some showing of inequality but it could've been much more. It is much much much safer than Roe, and what state is actually going to put up a law to challenge it?

And the times the democratic party acts against minorities? That just goes ignored...

People have complained about how many times I posted the video but I guess that's not evidence at all...
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
7,024
5,217
118
Country
United States
Yeah, it's a very legit argument. Why are you gonna force something on someone that only affects them? But then allow someone else to choose when that choice affects more than just them?
Can't tell if you're pro or anti MMR vaccine mandate now
The baby...
Does not have a right to use somebody else's body without permission. I don't care if they're -3 months old, 2 years old, or a 35 year old computer programmer named Daryl.
Like no one has a problem with it but you.
Lotta people have a problem with prison labor, actually. For a wide variety of reasons
Why would these places have to accept religion? Marriage doesn't have to have anything official tied to it. Oh noes, you have to leave the religion that doesn't like your lifestyle...
Because hospitals typically have a "No visitors besides family" policy and if they don't recognize your marriage, you aren't family. And if you think I'm making shit up, dying gay men during the aids crisis usually only got visitors when lesbian women pretended to be their wives. Insurance policies typically pay out to next of kin, and you aren't kin if they don't recognize your marriage. Social Security benefits and the government work the same way, with the same pitfalls.
You have to challenge such inequalities, it doesn't just go away just cuz.
Damn, doesn't sound like it was set up to be equal then
They literally didn't, no one in history used the 9th amendment to challenge slavery.
So if I find one argument using the 9th amendment, you'll stop defending prison slavery?
They used the 14th differently not saying married people have these advantages thus it's unequal, they just said that it's not equal because they these people can get married and those cannot. Those are different arguments.
No they fucking didn't. How are you that delusional?
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees the right of same-sex couples to marry as the denial of that right would deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law.
IT'S BASED ON THE FUCKING ARGUMENTS. The SC said it's not a right based on the Roe argument, they overturned Roe not abortion. That has nothing to do with whether abortion can be a federal right or not.
The Supreme Court explicitly said that Abortion wasn't a right under the constitution, nullifying the 9th amendment argument. You're just wrong.
And, you seem to claim that a whole other person has the right to end someone else's life.
************, stop. My argument it that a whole other person doesn't get to use your fucking body. If that means they die than oh fucking well, they get to the afterlife or oblivion with everybody who died on dialysis waiting for a kidney. This isn't that fucking complex and the fact that you're throwing a bitchfit over vaccines but accept this tripe is hilarious.

And considering you claim not to be anti abortion, what's your justification in allowing somebody to, in your own words "end someone else's life", even if just *some* of the time. What's your fucking criteria? Set it in stone, take a stand for once.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
18,447
2,933
118
So you want socialism then?
I said Capitalism isn't Left, and Capitalism is in large part responsible for systemic racism. Do I want Socialism? Who knows. But I know Capitalism is sure fucking things up for the vast majority of this planet's inhabitants.

Wow, you can't even admit there's another body in there...
Oh, I'll admit there's another body in there; the body of an embryo. An embryo that's inside the uterus of the one carrying it; the one and only who gets to decide whether to put their body through the severe physical and possibly life threatening strain of carrying it to term. The life altering (and threatening) decision the GOP took away from half of all Americans, of which we've already seen the nightmarish ramifications.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,786
4,307
118
Country
United Kingdom
This is a counterargument how?

Most of the argument was that. I believe there was some showing of inequality but it could've been much more. It is much much much safer than Roe, and what state is actually going to put up a law to challenge it?
Most of what argument? Obergefell? Can you quote me what the hell you're talking about from the actual filing, because right now it seems like you're just talking out of your ass again.

And the times the democratic party acts against minorities? That just goes ignored...
Probably because it's not relevant to the question. This is complete whataboutism. We're not just engaged in a "which side's worse" race here. We're talking about the question of discrimination against LGBT consumers-- and one side (the Republicans) tries consistently to allow it, and the other doesn't.

People have complained about how many times I posted the video but I guess that's not evidence at all...
Correct! Glad you're starting to realise!
 
Last edited:

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
7,979
2,477
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Correct! Glad you're starting to realise!
You gotta understand. Phoenixings just like to apply things from a general idea to an absolute in all cases. Eg. Men are generally stronger than women must mean that all are stronger. We cannot possible go around seeing if individual men are stronger than top tier (athletically speaking) women. If elements of the Liberal group have been hypocritical, that means all Liberals are hypocritical. If any person buys an expensive phone and calls themselves poor, that means all poor people waste their money on expensive phones
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,732
642
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Can't tell if you're pro or anti MMR vaccine mandate now
Does not have a right to use somebody else's body without permission. I don't care if they're -3 months old, 2 years old, or a 35 year old computer programmer named Daryl.
Lotta people have a problem with prison labor, actually. For a wide variety of reasons
Because hospitals typically have a "No visitors besides family" policy and if they don't recognize your marriage, you aren't family. And if you think I'm making shit up, dying gay men during the aids crisis usually only got visitors when lesbian women pretended to be their wives. Insurance policies typically pay out to next of kin, and you aren't kin if they don't recognize your marriage. Social Security benefits and the government work the same way, with the same pitfalls.
Damn, doesn't sound like it was set up to be equal then
So if I find one argument using the 9th amendment, you'll stop defending prison slavery?
No they fucking didn't. How are you that delusional?
The Supreme Court explicitly said that Abortion wasn't a right under the constitution, nullifying the 9th amendment argument. You're just wrong.
************, stop. My argument it that a whole other person doesn't get to use your fucking body. If that means they die than oh fucking well, they get to the afterlife or oblivion with everybody who died on dialysis waiting for a kidney. This isn't that fucking complex and the fact that you're throwing a bitchfit over vaccines but accept this tripe is hilarious.

And considering you claim not to be anti abortion, what's your justification in allowing somebody to, in your own words "end someone else's life", even if just *some* of the time. What's your fucking criteria? Set it in stone, take a stand for once.
I'm fine with schools mandating MMR, it has community benefit unlike the covid vaccine.

Again, I thought we'd move past this very surface level argument and you can understand where the other side is at least coming from but you just don't seem to at all. We're just going around in circles.

A lot of people probably have a problem with prison labor due to it being exploited and targeting specific groups through stuff like sentencing differences but the basic concept of it, not so much.

If marriage wasn't officially recognized as anything, then it wouldn't be an issue. The hospital a nurse friend used to work at, the policy there was there was a family password and anyone that knew the password had full visitation privileges. Anyway, you just listed reasons why the current way marriage is recognized makes it unfair and unequal.

If it's found to be unequal lawfully, then how wasn't it setup to be equal?

Why would that change my opinion on prison slavery? If you found that slavery was challenged via the 9th amendment at some point, I'd probably change my opinion on the 9th amendment somewhat.

The inequality was the 4th and last argument of the plaintiffs instead of the 1st argument. I don't understand how that's not like the 1st argument and probably really only argument because that's all you need.

They said Roe's arguments were wrong and very weak, not that abortion itself was unconstitutional but the way it was argued was.
Writing for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the 1973 Roe ruling and repeated subsequent high court decisions reaffirming Roe "must be overruled" because they were "egregiously wrong," the arguments "exceptionally weak" and so "damaging" that they amounted to "an abuse of judicial authority."

I fucking understand your argument, you don't seem to understand the other side's argument. Both sides are morally right. You gotta extend your argument way fucking more and explain via like a philosophical/moral proof why yours is morally better than theirs. You continue to not do that and just parrot your stance over and over again and guess what? The other side can just comeback with their basic stance over and over again (killing babies) and then neither of you are actually having a discussion but just going in a never-ending circle just getting angrier at each other. I've never really said which is the morally better stance because I honestly don't really care that much to think about it much (and do the proof required) because that would be missing the forest for the trees. You give both sides a piece of the "win" and both are content enough, there is mutual respect, and whatever the next issue is where there is a rift in morality, you have fostered a better environment to work that out because polarization is bad and causes more harm in the long run than if either side wins abortion. It's the tagline from Alien vs Predator, Whoever Wins...We Lose.

I said Capitalism isn't Left, and Capitalism is in large part responsible for systemic racism. Do I want Socialism? Who knows. But I know Capitalism is sure fucking things up for the vast majority of this planet's inhabitants.

Oh, I'll admit there's another body in there; the body of an embryo. An embryo that's inside the uterus of the one carrying it; the one and only who gets to decide whether to put their body through the severe physical and possibly life threatening strain of carrying it to term. The life altering (and threatening) decision the GOP took away from half of all Americans, of which we've already seen the nightmarish ramifications.
So would socialism. Humans will exploit anything and you have to build in the proper safeguards to prevent exploitation. It's not too dissimilar from designing a balanced game, it's just a lot more complex and more "political" to actually get the proper safeguards in place.

Basically what I said just above this at the end. The GOP didn't take anything away, the SC said abortion is a state's right vs federal right based on how poor the Roe argument was. Also, the DNC didn't codify Roe when they knew Roe was a shit argument.

This is a counterargument how?



Most of what argument? Obergefell? Can you quote me what the hell you're talking about from the actual filing, because right now it seems like you're just talking out of your ass again.



Probably because it's not relevant to the question. This is complete whataboutism. We're not just engaged in a "which side's worse" race here. We're talking about the question of discrimination against LGBT consumers-- and one side (the Republicans) tries consistently to allow it, and the other doesn't.



Correct! Glad you're starting to realise!
Because something I say I will do vs something I say I could possibly do are 2 very different things.

Mysterious linked the case with all the relevant info. Inequality was used as the 4th and final argument vs the main argument when the inquality argument is all you need really and should be the main legal argument because it's not a moral court but a legal court. In the end, that should be more than enough to uphold gay marriage whereas Roe had nothing in there that was strong and it was something pretty easy to overturn.

How is the GOP doing the more obvious evil stuff make them worse than the DNC doing the less obvious stuff that makes LGBT less well off?

And when will ya'll equally start blasting the DNC for all the shit they do? You guys want all this equality but don't actually practice it, like 99.9% of political discussion is just complaining about GOP when it's at worst like 60/40 for who's actually better/worse.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,786
4,307
118
Country
United Kingdom
Because something I say I will do vs something I say I could possibly do are 2 very different things.
OK...? So you can see that they could do it, then. Law isn't an obstacle.

Mysterious linked the case with all the relevant info. Inequality was used as the 4th and final argument vs the main argument when the inquality argument is all you need really and should be the main legal argument because it's not a moral court but a legal court. In the end, that should be more than enough to uphold gay marriage whereas Roe had nothing in there that was strong and it was something pretty easy to overturn.
Right, but this is just an opinion that the equality argument should be more prominent, which isn't what I was asking. Where's the argument that it should be legal because "it just should"? It's not there.

How is the GOP doing the more obvious evil stuff make them worse than the DNC doing the less obvious stuff that makes LGBT less well off?
The actions of the GOP have a more serious impact. That's what makes them worse. Their actions aren't merely more "obvious"; they're also much more severe.

And when will ya'll equally start blasting the DNC for all the shit they do? You guys want all this equality but don't actually practice it, like 99.9% of political discussion is just complaining about GOP when it's at worst like 60/40 for who's actually better/worse.
Why would I "equally" condemn two sides when they're not equally culpable?

I've criticised the Democrats on this forum quite a lot, actually. They're a coalition of corporatist drones and limpdick political centrists. But I'm not going to pretend they're even a tenth as godawful as the treasonous theocrats, far-right racists, and disaster-capitalists of the Grotesque Old Party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
7,024
5,217
118
Country
United States
I'm fine with schools mandating MMR, it has community benefit unlike the covid vaccine.
The community benefit for the covid vaccine is fewer people seriously sick, long term damaged, or dead from covid.
Again, I thought we'd move past this very surface level argument and you can understand where the other side is at least coming from but you just don't seem to at all. We're just going around in circles.
I know exactly where they are coming from and reject it whole heartedly as tragically misguided at best and actively malicious at worst
A lot of people probably have a problem with prison labor due to it being exploited and targeting specific groups through stuff like sentencing differences but the basic concept of it, not so much.
The former always comes from the latter, and it's still slavery
If marriage wasn't officially recognized as anything, then it wouldn't be an issue. The hospital a nurse friend used to work at, the policy there was there was a family password and anyone that knew the password had full visitation privileges. Anyway, you just listed reasons why the current way marriage is recognized makes it unfair and unequal.
Really bound and detriment to ignore the bigotry factor, huh
If it's found to be unequal lawfully, then how wasn't it setup to be equal?
Because it had to be heavily modified decades after the fact.
Why would that change my opinion on prison slavery? If you found that slavery was challenged via the 9th amendment at some point, I'd probably change my opinion on the 9th amendment somewhat.
So the whole "but they didn't try using the 9th amendment" was pure sophistry then
The inequality was the 4th and last argument of the plaintiffs instead of the 1st argument. I don't understand how that's not like the 1st argument and probably really only argument because that's all you need.
Or in other words, they definitely used it like you said they didn't, and 4 justices ignored it anyway. The part you don't understand is willful bigotry rooted in religion.
I fucking understand your argument, you don't seem to understand the other side's argument. Both sides are morally right. You gotta extend your argument way fucking more and explain via like a philosophical/moral proof why yours is morally better than theirs. You continue to not do that and just parrot your stance over and over again and guess what? The other side can just comeback with their basic stance over and over again (killing babies) and then neither of you are actually having a discussion but just going in a never-ending circle just getting angrier at each other. I've never really said which is the morally better stance because I honestly don't really care that much to think about it much (and do the proof required) because that would be missing the forest for the trees. You give both sides a piece of the "win" and both are content enough, there is mutual respect, and whatever the next issue is where there is a rift in morality, you have fostered a better environment to work that out because polarization is bad and causes more harm in the long run than if either side wins abortion. It's the tagline from Alien vs Predator, Whoever Wins...We Lose.
These 2 sets of morals are mutually exclusive. See, we *had* a compromise, and the GOP spent 50 years of effort and no small amount of hypocritical bullshit blowing it up. What "mutual respect" was there? And now child rape victims have to be on the brink of death in order to get an abortion in something like 20 states. I'm supposed to morally compromise with that? Get the fuck out of here with your "why can't we all get along, it's your fault for not compromising" bullshit when you can't even be bothered enough to think about taking a stand.

I've "extended" my argument to it's breaking point. Pregnant people are the only people that the government forces to use their own bodies as medical equipment through donating tissue, blood, organs, hormones, the whole non yards; taking nearly a year of illness and extreme discomfort, causing permanent changes to their body and risking severe complications and fucking *death* on a good day, and while forcing them to eventually take time off and severely impacting their personal lives in both being a bother to others and losing income, while personally charging them thousands or tens of thousands dollars for the privilege. We do not do this to any other group of people for any reason, correctly viewing it to be a monstrous violation of human rights. We do not do this to *corpses*. And this is me meeting you half fucking way and pretending that some small sack of tissue that's never even seen daylight or taken a single breath of air even counts as a fucking person in the first place.

I fully understand that some of those idiots think an embryo is a human being with full personhood. My argument is based on the solid fact that we do not give literally any other person that right, so why the fuck are we making an exception for embryos and fetuses?

What you don't fully understand is that a significant number of these fuckers don't give a single shit about *any* of these people and just want a way to punish "those whores" in accordance to their very kind and merciful god's commandments, fully saying with their own chests that you should be thankful for being raped because it's all part of god's plan for you. And that's if they're nice, the mean ones say you deserved it.
Basically what I said just above this at the end. The GOP didn't take anything away
You look at every newly passed anti-abortion law in this country and try saying that again. Look at how many of them don't give a single shit if the pregnant person risks being permanently disabled after giving birth. Look at how many of them don't give a single shit about people that didn't ask to be pregnant in the first place. Look at how many of them don't give a single shit if the fetus is gonna die immediately or happens to be dead in the womb just because they can detect a slight electric impulse sent from some headless fetuses spinal column that we laughably call a "heartbeat", or has a twin that already dead and is just waiting to go necrotic.

"The GOP didn't take anything away", fucking hell.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dirty Hipsters

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
18,447
2,933
118
So would socialism.
So says Capitalism, right?

Basically what I said just above this at the end. The GOP didn't take anything away, the SC said abortion is a state's right vs federal right based on how poor the Roe argument was. Also, the DNC didn't codify Roe when they knew Roe was a shit argument.
Roe v. Wade gave all women access to abortion, and the GOP took it away - Nobody gives a shit if it was a poor argument except people trying to spin this to ban abortions. It never should've been an argument in the first place, it's a basic human right. Women deserve access to safe abortions, end of story. Again, we've already had 10-year olds needing to travel across state and people being forced to carry dead fetusses in their womb (a major fucking health risk) because doctors were too scared of getting sued, losing their license, or thrown in jail - Anyone who tries to spin this or make some counter argument needs to fuck right off!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirty Hipsters

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,732
642
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
OK...? So you can see that they could do it, then. Law isn't an obstacle.



Right, but this is just an opinion that the equality argument should be more prominent, which isn't what I was asking. Where's the argument that it should be legal because "it just should"? It's not there.



The actions of the GOP have a more serious impact. That's what makes them worse. Their actions aren't merely more "obvious"; they're also much more severe.



Why would I "equally" condemn two sides when they're not equally culpable?

I've criticised the Democrats on this forum quite a lot, actually. They're a coalition of corporatist drones and limpdick political centrists. But I'm not going to pretend they're even a tenth as godawful as the treasonous theocrats, far-right racists, and disaster-capitalists of the Grotesque Old Party.
They could possibly do it based on the law and arguments.

The court isn't the moral court, that's why. Decisions don't get made because it's the right thing to do, they get made because you proved or didn't prove your case.

Minorities are suffering more over DNC policy than GOP policy. What's worse; a trans person can't use a bathroom they want / play on the sex sports team they want or they can't find an affordable house to buy or an affordable apartment to rent / a business building to buy/rent to start a business?

Neither side is making things better for the groups that need things to be better. They are both bad guys, and just because one is a bit badder than the other doesn't make the other guy a good guy or a guy you should defend or a guy you should vote for. And I don't think you've actually looked at the ramifications of what they've both done because sure the GOP looks like they're super evil on the surface level but the DNC is even worse when you check out the entire iceberg vs just the noticeable tip. FOX News just had the NAACP on over horrible left policy in Washington DC, that is how bad some DNC policy is, FOX had on the NAACP, think about that.


The community benefit for the covid vaccine is fewer people seriously sick, long term damaged, or dead from covid.
I know exactly where they are coming from and reject it whole heartedly as tragically misguided at best and actively malicious at worst
The former always comes from the latter, and it's still slavery
Really bound and detriment to ignore the bigotry factor, huh
Because it had to be heavily modified decades after the fact.
So the whole "but they didn't try using the 9th amendment" was pure sophistry then
Or in other words, they definitely used it like you said they didn't, and 4 justices ignored it anyway. The part you don't understand is willful bigotry rooted in religion.
These 2 sets of morals are mutually exclusive. See, we *had* a compromise, and the GOP spent 50 years of effort and no small amount of hypocritical bullshit blowing it up. What "mutual respect" was there? And now child rape victims have to be on the brink of death in order to get an abortion in something like 20 states. I'm supposed to morally compromise with that? Get the fuck out of here with your "why can't we all get along, it's your fault for not compromising" bullshit when you can't even be bothered enough to think about taking a stand.

I've "extended" my argument to it's breaking point. Pregnant people are the only people that the government forces to use their own bodies as medical equipment through donating tissue, blood, organs, hormones, the whole non yards; taking nearly a year of illness and extreme discomfort, causing permanent changes to their body and risking severe complications and fucking *death* on a good day, and while forcing them to eventually take time off and severely impacting their personal lives in both being a bother to others and losing income, while personally charging them thousands or tens of thousands dollars for the privilege. We do not do this to any other group of people for any reason, correctly viewing it to be a monstrous violation of human rights. We do not do this to *corpses*. And this is me meeting you half fucking way and pretending that some small sack of tissue that's never even seen daylight or taken a single breath of air even counts as a fucking person in the first place.

I fully understand that some of those idiots think an embryo is a human being with full personhood. My argument is based on the solid fact that we do not give literally any other person that right, so why the fuck are we making an exception for embryos and fetuses?

What you don't fully understand is that a significant number of these fuckers don't give a single shit about *any* of these people and just want a way to punish "those whores" in accordance to their very kind and merciful god's commandments, fully saying with their own chests that you should be thankful for being raped because it's all part of god's plan for you. And that's if they're nice, the mean ones say you deserved it.
You look at every newly passed anti-abortion law in this country and try saying that again. Look at how many of them don't give a single shit if the pregnant person risks being permanently disabled after giving birth. Look at how many of them don't give a single shit about people that didn't ask to be pregnant in the first place. Look at how many of them don't give a single shit if the fetus is gonna die immediately or happens to be dead in the womb just because they can detect a slight electric impulse sent from some headless fetuses spinal column that we laughably call a "heartbeat", or has a twin that already dead and is just waiting to go necrotic.

"The GOP didn't take anything away", fucking hell.
Then why aren't you on a soapbox about pop being banned? If it's only personal risk, then why do you care? You gonna ban motorcycles?

Then, i guess people shouldn't ever work because it can be exploited. I guess there should be no video games because developers can be and are exploited.

What bigotry would exist if marriage was no longer officially recognized?

One sentence is heavily modified?

You have to show me times the 9th was used to prove a right and the argument being denied.

It was their fourth and final argument so it probably got very little court time when it should've been the highlight and the crux of the argument.

Again, you're not doing a proof of any kind, you're just describing how something is bad, the other side can list just as many bad things in favor of their stance too. You're not proving your moral stance should take precedent over their moral stance. You're arguments are not that rock solid either, you say you don't give any other person the that right of using another person's body but we do, how to you think kids are supported by the parents, using their body to work to support them. Also, where else do give the right to kill another human? The fact that you're calling them idiots already shows you don't respect their stance.

You think most democrats genuinely care about it either? They've used it for political capital for 50 years just like the GOP.


So says Capitalism, right?

Roe v. Wade gave all women access to abortion, and the GOP took it away - Nobody gives a shit if it was a poor argument except people trying to spin this to ban abortions. It never should've been an argument in the first place, it's a basic human right. Women deserve access to safe abortions, end of story. Again, we've already had 10-year olds needing to travel across state and people being forced to carry dead fetusses in their womb (a major fucking health risk) because doctors were too scared of getting sued, losing their license, or thrown in jail - Anyone who tries to spin this or make some counter argument needs to fuck right off!
Anything can be exploited. The basic system of socialism would be exploited without the proper safeguards in place. You're acting like if we had socialism hundreds of years ago, there wouldn't have been racism.

It wasn't the federal government's to give. Laws don't concern themselves with morals, that's why you need a good argument. If you're trying someone for murder, are you going to show how bad a person they are or use evidence to prove that they murdered the person? The argument of privacy is so bad that it was never used to make other medical procedures legal because of how asinine the argument is. Why is abortion a basic human right? Abortion goes against another pretty basic human right that is definitely agreed upon being a basic human right.
 

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Nov 18, 2010
8,056
5,235
118

The closest catch-all solution would just be for BC to be mandatory until someone actually wants to have kids and is proven fit to do so. Would save the world a lot of fucking hassle, no pun.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
7,024
5,217
118
Country
United States
Then why aren't you on a soapbox about pop being banned? If it's only personal risk, then why do you care? You gonna ban motorcycles?
"If you think it's okay to have vaccine mandates, why don't you also want to ban sugar water?" Fucking seriously with this shit? Covid is still killing more people in three weeks than get killed on motorcycles in a year in the US, fucking stop this.
Then, i guess people shouldn't ever work because it can be exploited. I guess there should be no video games because developers can be and are exploited.
Correct, video game developers also should not be exploited and certainly not enslaved. And if that means no video games until the situation is rectified then so be it? I don't even know why you'd *want* to buy video games that could only be made if the devs were exploited.
What bigotry would exist if marriage was no longer officially recognized?
The religious hospital thing, the insurance thing, the inheritance thing...
One sentence is heavily modified?
The 13th and 14th amendments are significantly longer than one sentence, and that's not including the reams of paper worth of supporting laws
It was their fourth and final argument so it probably got very little court time when it should've been the highlight and the crux of the argument.
A) it was still an argument being made
B) you end with the best argument because it's the last one before deliberations begin
C) 4 justices still voted against it
Again, you're not doing a proof of any kind, you're just describing how something is bad, the other side can list just as many bad things in favor of their stance too. You're not proving your moral stance should take precedent over their moral stance.
Okay, so how do I prove "the government should not be allowed to steal your redundant organs" as the correct moral stance, Mr Philosophy? How is it even *possible* to find a correct morality?

For that matter, you can't find an actual *flaw* with this morality. You just talk around it without ever engaging like the moral coward you are
You're arguments are not that rock solid either, you say you don't give any other person the that right of using another person's body but we do, how to you think kids are supported by the parents, using their body to work to support them.
Anybody can support a child. Groups of people can support a child. Fucking hell, we have systems in place for when the original parent can't or won't support a child. You cannot do that with pregnancy. (Yet)
Also, where else do give the right to kill another human?
The same place where withholding a compatable kidney kills a person on dialysis, moron. Why does a fetus have the right to another person's body for 9 months? The right to steal resources and permanently alter that body? The right to put that body in mortal peril? And why doesn't literally anybody else have the same right to somebody else's body? Why is a fetus a special exception, what gives it that right over a full blooded human person?

What is your moral justification for that?
The fact that you're calling them idiots already shows you don't respect their stance.
Correct, I do not respect their stance. And why should I, when their stance is "it was part of God's plan that the 10 year old was raped and impregnated, so we have to force her to have the rapist's child until it brings her to the brink of death"?
You think most democrats genuinely care about it either? They've used it for political capital for 50 years just like the GOP.
Damn, that a good comback to the "a significant number of people consider rape babies a punishment from god that children have to live with" argument. Especially when the GOP has made dozens of laws to that effect. Do you actually care about that or do you just want to ***** about Democrats some more?
It wasn't the federal government's to give. Laws don't concern themselves with morals, that's why you need a good argument. If you're trying someone for murder, are you going to show how bad a person they are or use evidence to prove that they murdered the person? The argument of privacy is so bad that it was never used to make other medical procedures legal because of how asinine the argument is. Why is abortion a basic human right? Abortion goes against another pretty basic human right that is definitely agreed upon being a basic human right.
And what right would that be? Does that right include using somebody else's body for survival without consent? Does everybody have that right?

Hey, if you can save 5 lives by murdering 1 person with healthy organs, is it morally right to do so?
 
Last edited:

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
18,447
2,933
118
Anything can be exploited. The basic system of socialism would be exploited without the proper safeguards in place. You're acting like if we had socialism hundreds of years ago, there wouldn't have been racism.
I'm not. I'm saying Capitalism greatly helps to systemically engrain it.

It wasn't the federal government's to give. Laws don't concern themselves with morals, that's why you need a good argument. If you're trying someone for murder, are you going to show how bad a person they are or use evidence to prove that they murdered the person? The argument of privacy is so bad that it was never used to make other medical procedures legal because of how asinine the argument is. Why is abortion a basic human right? Abortion goes against another pretty basic human right that is definitely agreed upon being a basic human right.
Being born is not a human right onto itself. It's the human right of the one pregnant to have the child if they so choose, it's not the human right of a child to be born. If it were we'd all be guilty for not constantly trying to procreate. Abortion is a basic human right because women suffer untold amounts more without it. That's your evidence right there as well. The only thing abortion goes against is religious beliefs. But the fact that you equate the right to abortion to morals says enough.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,786
4,307
118
Country
United Kingdom
The court isn't the moral court, that's why. Decisions don't get made because it's the right thing to do, they get made because you proved or didn't prove your case.
But you said the argument was there in Obergefell. Now you're.... giving reasons why it's not there?

Minorities are suffering more over DNC policy than GOP policy. What's worse; a trans person can't use a bathroom they want / play on the sex sports team they want or they can't find an affordable house to buy or an affordable apartment to rent / a business building to buy/rent to start a business?
Firstly, it's the GOP that's trying its hardest to remove discrimination/criminal protections from Trans people. It's GOP policy that makes it as hard as possible for trans people to access lifesaving medication. So it's GOP policy that leads to more than bathroom and sports stuff; it's GOP policy that allows prejudicial hirings and firings, and opens the door for violent abuse, that exacerbates medical conditions.

Secondly, the GOP also hikes business rates, rent, mortgage payments etc, all while suppressing wages. So no, even if you resort to generic economic arguments, they're still not "better off" under the Republicans. Nobody is, except the rich.

Neither side is making things better for the groups that need things to be better. They are both bad guys, and just because one is a bit badder than the other doesn't make the other guy a good guy or a guy you should defend or a guy you should vote for.
Not "a bit badder". A fucking helluva lot badder.

But no, neither are good guys, which is why I didn't say they were.
 
Last edited:

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
7,024
5,217
118
Country
United States
Being born is not a human right onto itself. It's the human right of the one pregnant to have the child if they so choose, it's not the human right of a child to be born. If it were we'd all be guilty for not constantly trying to procreate. Abortion is a basic human right because women suffer untold amounts more without it. That's your evidence right there as well. The only thing abortion goes against is religious beliefs. But the fact that you equate the right to abortion to morals says enough.
Hell, forcing raped people to stay pregnant could be argued to be a Crime Against Humanity
 
  • Like
Reactions: Casual Shinji

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,522
1,854
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
The court isn't the moral court, that's why. Decisions don't get made because it's the right thing to do, they get made because you proved or didn't prove your case.
Immoral laws are not good laws.